London Borough of Enfield (202229098)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229098

London Borough of Enfield

28 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for information about the ‘buyback’ process.
2. Query about cladding.
3. Reports of damp and mould.
4. Request for compensation for boiler and additional heaters.
5. Dissatisfaction about winter fuel payments.
6. Concerns about her license agreement.
Complaint.

Background

The resident holds a lease with the landlord, which is a local authority. The lease agreement commenced on 22 May 2017. The landlord does not have a record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the third floor of a block comprised of 126 flats which are occupied by tenants and leaseholders.
On 19 July 2021 a ‘disproportionate collapse report’ was undertaken on behalf of the landlord. The report concluded that the piped gas supply should be removed due to the inability of the building to withstand the required level of “static pressure within a flat.” Having shared the report with the gas carrier, it wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2021 to give notice that the supply would need to be terminated by 19 July 2022.
It wrote to residents in April 2022 and advised that all residents would need to be rehoused or need to relocate, as a precautionary measure. In the meantime, the landlord would install an alternative heat solution to ensure residents continued to have heating and hot water. However, it became apparent that the landlord would be unable to do so before the supply was disconnected by July 2022. It agreed an extension from the supplier to 30 September 2022.
In March 2022 the resident and landlord began discussions around the buyback process, the first step being for the landlord to arrange a valuation. The resident also sought advice on how she may arrange her own independent valuation. In June discussions took place about compensation for the resident’s boiler which was now redundant. In November the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the property. She believed this was caused by the temporary heating system being inadequate and the removal of external cladding several years ago.
On 2 December 2022 the resident was decanted to temporary accommodation. On 21 December the resident emailed the landlord because she believed it was in breach of its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018. She requested that it carry out an HHSRS inspection.
On 13 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint. This investigation has not seen a copy of that complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 January 2023, the main points being:
1. The temporary licence stated that the occupation period would be “reviewed by an officer on a day to day and/or a week-to-week basis subject to my/our personal circumstances.” The landlord annotated the agreement to state that, the “licence is a rolling agreement which can be ended at any time.” It said this was in line with the printed statement on the agreement signed by the resident and simply offered further clarification.
2. The compensation for the boiler made in its letter of 20 January 2023 was a full and final offer so it would not make a further offer.
3. It did not have a record of it agreeing to provide a report following a visit to the property.
4. It apologised for delays in the most recent instalment of winter fuel payments. It had written to all residents on 20 January to set out arrangements for energy use subsidy payment. Payments were subsequently uplifted and began on 23 January. It asked the resident to advise if a payment had not been received so it could confirm the date it was issued.
5. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident and her family.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 January 2023 to report her dissatisfaction with its complaint response because it had not addressed all the points she had raised. Specifically, this was in relation to the cladding, condensation, damp and mould and an inadequate temporary heating solution.
On 7 February 2023 the resident sent a further email to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction which the landlord accepted as a stage 2 complaint, as follows:
1. She felt she was being “tossed from pillar to post.”
2. The landlord was not meeting its culture and behaviour commitments.
3. It stage 1 complaint response did not address all the points she had raised.
4. On 26 November 2022 the resident noted there was damp and mould on her son’s bedroom wall. The landlord attended the property that day, taking photos of all rooms and walls. It advised a follow up report would be discussed and a copy could be provided to the resident should she wish. On 9 January 2023 requested a copy of the report.
5. She requested confirmation of specific payments of her winter fuel and therefore a general response was not sufficient.
6. Following a meeting with the landlord on 11 October 2022 she sought an update on the future of the building.
7. She asked the landlord to explain how the landlord calculated the figure of £500 offered as compensation for the boiler. She also requested compensation for additional heaters which she had purchased.
8. She had signed the license agreement and if it was subsequently altered then it was no longer a legally binding document because she had not read and agreed to additional points. She felt it was dishonest of the landlord to change parts of agreement without her knowledge.
9. She had been told she could instruct her own valuation but had never been advised how this would happen. Then she was told that the landlord would provide the valuation but she had not received it.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2023, as follows:
1. It apologised that a previous member of staff dealing with case did not advise she was leaving and did not provide details of a new point of contact.
2. The resident’s request for information on the property and communal repairs for the building would be provided on 24 March. It would also provide a copy of the report following its visit to the property on 9 January.
3. It apologised if its communication about winter fuel payments was not clear. It set out what levels of payments were made for what periods and confirmed it was satisfied the correct payments were made.
4. It confirmed that the resident had raised issued with damp and mould and had requested a HHSRS inspection. The landlord arranged to decant the resident, first to a hotel then to a 2 bedroom property and finally to a 3 bedroom property. It had removed the risk and therefore it was not appropriate to carry out the HHSRS inspection. It apologised if this was not communicated clearly to the resident.
5. There was a management plan in place for the building.
6. It confirmed that it was providing leaseholders with specialist support to guide them on the process for selling their home, purchasing a new home and moving.
7. A current valuation of properties was being obtained to inform discussions around buyback.. The officer leading on the case had met with the resident and discussed options.
8. Compensation for the boiler was offered under the terms of the lease. The resident had opted to retain ownership of the boiler, it was disconnected but not removed. The resident had been asked to provide proof of cost of her boiler for review but had not provided this. Once this information was provided it would review the offer.
9. The resident signed the temporary agreement which set out the basis on which she occupied the property. The annotation was not intended to change the agreement but to add clarity on its meaning.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
1. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 30 working days.
2. Where attempts for early resolution have been unsuccessful the complaint will be progressed to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will pay compensation for inconvenience and distress as follows:
1. £50-£100 for service failure.
2. £100-£600 for maladministration which had adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact or where a significant service failure occurred.
3. £600-£1000 where there had been significant impact and severe maladministration occurred.
4. £1000+ for severe maladministration and long term impact.

Buyback process

On 29 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask if it intended to cover the costs of a valuation and how she might go about instructing her own independent survey. The landlord replied on 1 April to confirm it would carry out the valuation within the next week or so. It said it would provide a further update on how the resident could instruct her own survey. There is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate, particularly because its letter to leaseholders later in the year, on 7 October, emphasised the requirement for residents to obtain their own independent valuation.
On 3 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to query a letter it had sent on 15 March which said that it would need to complete purchase of the property before the gas supply was disconnected. Given that this had not taken place, and the gas was going to be disconnected on 30 September, the resident sought written confirmation that buyback was still an option.
The landlord replied on 5 August 2022 to confirm that because the situation regarding the installation of the temporary hot water and heating solution had changed, and the date for the disconnection extended, there was time for statutory consultation to take place. It said consultation was required before it could comment further on a possible purchase.
It said it appreciated the “frustration residents must feel having to wait for the outcome” and apologised that it could not provide any further information. While its explanation was reasonable, it should proactively communicated this to the resident. It acknowledged that it was a frustrating situation for residents. A lack of communication on critical issues such as this added to the distress and uncertainty.
The landlord wrote to all residents on 7 October 2022 regarding buyback options. On 27 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that it provide confirmation that it would purchase the property at market value plus 10%. On 1 February the landlord replied to say they could meet once the valuation was received. The resident replied on the same day, 1 February, to request timescales for the second valuation. She also requested a copy of the first valuation which was provided on 21 July, almost 6 months later. There was no explanation as to why it had taken so long and therefore the delay was unreasonable.
On 7 February 2023 the landlord provided an update to the resident that it was still waiting for the second valuation and in the meantime it would get a calculation to revert to tenancy and whether the decant property was one of its assets. However, there is no evidence that it provided this calculation which was inappropriate.
In her stage 2 complaint of 7 February 2023 the resident said there had been no further updates since the meeting on 11 October 2022 and asked what was happening with the building. The landlord provided a response in its stage 2 complaint response of 21 March. The information provided in its response was appropriate however, the lack of effective communication was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the buyback process, including:
1. It did not provide details on how she could instruct her own survey and failed to provide further information on the calculation to revert to tenancy.
2. It failed to proactively update the resident on its decision to extend the deadline by which it needed to have purchased the property, and to engage a period of statutory consultation.
3. It took 6 months to provide copies of the valuation requested by the resident.
Given the uncertainty associated with the resident’s housing situation it was critical that she be given accurate and timely information in relation to the buyback process. The landlord failed to demonstrate the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. This is because it failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint by identifying service improvements and failed to put things right.
The failures identified in relation to the landlord’s communication amount to maladministration because distress and frustration was caused to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150. This is in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there had been no permanent impact.

Cladding

On 21 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a query in relation to external cladding that it had removed from the building. She was concerned that its removal was a contributory factor to issues with damp and mould in the property.
The resident raised the issue relating to cladding in her stage 1 complaint of 13 January and again in her stage 2 complaint of 7 February. However, the landlord failed to address her concerns at both stages.
That her concerns went unheard caused the resident frustration and distress and showed a lack of respect. Furthermore, the lack of response undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
This investigation notes that the issue of cladding was considered in the landlord’s cabinet meeting on 12 April 2023 therefore an order has been made accordingly.
There was a single failure but it was significant because it was a lack of service. Therefore, this investigation considers that it amounts to maladministration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £250 which is in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been no permanent impact.

Damp and mould

On 26 November 2022 the resident observed damp and mould in her son’s bedroom. The landlord attended that same day to inspect and take photographs. In her stage 2 complaint of 7 February 2023 the resident reported that the inspector had committed to writing up a report which would be shared with a manager. The resident was advised that she would be able to request a copy of the report. The resident made that request on 9 January 2023 but did not provide a response which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident who had to raise the issue again in her complaint to the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 21 March 2023 said a copy of the report would be provided on 24 March. However, this did not take place which was inappropriate, causing frustration to the resident and a further erosion of trust with the landlord. Furthermore, in a letter to the resident dated 31 July the landlord said that it had been unable to locate the report. It said that inspections did not always result in formal reports being written.
While an inspection may not generate a formal report, as part of its repairs record keeping this Service would expect there to be a file note setting out the purpose and outcome of the inspection. The absence of this information was a record keeping failure. Also, there is no evidence that the landlord considered asking the inspector themselves which would have been reasonable, if still employed, given the absence of a file note. Furthermore, if the document did not exist it is unclear why the landlord advised the resident it would supply a copy by 24 March. That it did so, raised unrealistic expectations which caused further disappointment.
A mould wash was carried out on 26 November 2022. In her email to the landlord of 31 January 2023 the resident confirmed that the mould had returned in under a week. The landlord’s repair logs show that a request for an urgent inspection of the property was raised on 1 December 2022. On 24 March 2024 the resident advised this Service that she was decanted to a hotel on 2 December 2022.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide further records relating to its decision to decant the family in response to reports of damp and mould. In an email to this Service on 26 March 2024 the landlord advised “we do not hold notes regarding the actual decision to move the family. Much of the decision making was made via telephone calls at the time.” This is a significant record keeping failure which has been reflected in the orders in this determination. The landlord should take steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that all contact from a resident is recorded and retained.
On 21 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report her concerns that it had breached it responsibilities under the HHSRS. She requested it carry out an HHSRS assessment. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 21 March 2023 advised that it had removed the risk to the family by decanting them to alternative accommodation therefore, it had not been appropriate to carry out an assessment. It apologised if that had not been made clear at the time. The landlord’s explanation as to why it did not carry out the HHSRS assessment was reasonable. However, it was a failure that it did not communicate this to the resident at the time of her request. This is because it caused her distress and inconvenience in pursuing the matter further.
The landlord promised to provide a report to the resident that it did not have in its possession. There were significant record keeping failures which impacted this Service’s ability to investigate the resident’s complaint in order to reach a resolution. The landlord failed to communicate effectively regarding the HHSRS inspection. There were several failures which adversely affected the resident and therefore amount to maladministration. The landlord failed to acknowledge all of the failings and therefore failed to put things right. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £500. This is line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Compensation

The resident emailed the landlord on 23 June 2022 to enquire about compensation for her boiler. The landlord replied on 28 June to request details of the boiler installation which the resident provided the following day, on 29 June. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident which was inappropriate, causing frustration and disappointment.
The landlord wrote to all leaseholders on 20 January 2023 to make an offer of a one off payment of £500 as “full and final settlement” for the loss of a gas boiler. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 30 January reiterated that this was a full and final offer which could not be reviewed. This was not unreasonable however, it failed to address the resident’s request for compensation for additional heaters which she had purchased which was inappropriate.
In her email to the landlord of 7 February 2023 the resident once again raised her dissatisfaction at the level of compensation. There is no evidence that the landlord replied to the resident. This was inappropriate because it caused frustration, time and trouble because the resident emailed the landlord again on 23 February to raise the same issue. On this occasion the landlord replied on the same day, 23 February, to confirm that it would provide an update in its stage 2 complaint response.
However, there were several errors in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response issued on 21 March 2023 because it:
1. Said it was waiting for the resident to provide details of the boiler before it could review the situation. It is unclear why it did not have access to the information provided to it by the resident in her email of 29 June 2022.
2. Failed to explain how it arrived at the figure of £500 as specifically requested by the resident.
3. Failed to provide a response to the resident’s request for compensation for the additional heaters.
Following completion of the internal complaints process the landlord reviewed its offer. On 31 July 2023 the resident requested that the landlord increase the compensation for the boiler to £850 and pay the cost of the heaters amounting to £142 (total of £992). It offered compensation of £1500 to cover the costs of the “boiler, heaters and compensation for the inconvenience and stress caused.” Therefore, this investigation considers it reasonable to conclude that the landlord offered £500 compensation for inconvenience and stress.
This investigation has identified failures which amount to maladministration. This was because the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident in relation to her request for compensation. At both stage 1 and stage 2 it failed to respond to the resident’s request for compensation for the heaters she purchased and a breakdown of how it had arrived at its offer. Furthermore, there were additional errors in its stage 2 complaint response.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and therefore failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint. It missed opportunities to use the complaints process to offer redress early on in the process. Therefore the compensation offered is not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 which is in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Winter fuel payments

The landlord wrote to all leaseholders on 14 December 2022 to confirm that the first winter fuel payment had been made and apologised that it was later than expected. It said the next payment was due in early 2023.
In an email to this Service dated 24 March 2024 the resident advised that she is dissatisfied because the payment was delayed, being paid on 13 February instead of 23 January 2023.
The resident has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence relating to these payments, neither has the landlord provided evidence of the actual date payments were paid. The Ombudsman cannot therefore reasonably make a determination on this point.

License Agreement

Both the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 30 January 2023 and stage 2 complaint response of 21 March acknowledged that it annotated the license agreement after the resident signed it.
This investigation notes the landlord’s position was that the annotation did not change the meaning of the document. It is outside the scope of this investigation to determine whether the legal standing of the document was affected by the change. Therefore the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter.
However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to vary the document without mutual agreement from the resident. Furthermore, it is concerning that having accepted its error, it did not acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident and therefore did not take steps to put things right.
Its conduct undermined the landlord/resident relationship and caused distress to the resident which amounts to service failure. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100. This is consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a minor failure in the service and it did not appropriately acknowledge this or put it right.

Complaint Handling

The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2023 to which the landlord provided its response on 30 January. In her email to the landlord of 31 January the resident said it had failed to address the points in her complaint about cladding, condensation, damp and mould and inadequate temporary heating arrangements. This investigation has not seen a copy of the resident’s stage 1 complaint so is unable to make a determination on this point.
However, given that the complaint had not been fully resolved at stage 1, in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy it would have been appropriate for it to have escalated the complaint to stage 2. Alternatively, if the landlord did not feel it was appropriate to do so it should have provided a response to the resident setting out next steps. However, it failed to respond causing the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she emailed the landlord again on 7 February to raise her ongoing dissatisfaction.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2023, 30 working days later. Although this was in accordance with its complaints policy, the policy does not comply with the Code which requires landlord to issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days. An order has been made accordingly.
The 2 complaint handling failures identified amount to maladministration because there was more than one failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failures and made no attempts to put things right. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the buyback process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about cladding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for her boiler and additional heaters.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her license agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction about winter fuel payments.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1800 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information on the buyback process.
  2. £250 for adverse effect caused by the lack of service provided by the landlord in response to the resident’s query about cladding.
  3. £500 for the caused by the landlord’s failures in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  4. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for the boiler and additional heaters. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  5. £100 for the distress caused by the landlord’s failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about her license agreement.
  6. £150 for the frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in the case. This should include a response to the resident regarding the external cladding, setting out why it was removed, what it did to mitigate the effects if its removal, if anything, and actions for the future.
3. Carry out a self-assessment of its complaints policy against the new complaint handling code introduced on 1 April 2024. A copy of the assessment should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks it should review the record keeping failures identified in relation to the reports of damp and mould and decant against the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management. A copy of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.